State Capacity, Inequality and Inter-group Violence in Sub-Saharan Africa

(1)

State Capacity, Inequality and Inter-group Violence in Sub-Saharan Africa

Ida Rudolfsen

Department of Political Science Faculty of Social Sciences

University of Oslo Spring/May 2013

(2)

(3)

State Capacity, Inequality and Inter-group Violence in Sub-Saharan Africa

Ida Rudolfsen

(4)

©Ida Rudolfsen 2013

State Capacity, Inequality and Inter-group Violence in Sub-Saharan Africa

Ida Rudolfsen

http://www.duo.uio.no/

Print: Kopisten, Oslo

(5)

Abstract

Why do non-state groups engage in armed conflict with each other? Most studies on internal conflict focus on the dyadic interaction between the state and a rebel group, providing less attention to inter-group fighting. In an attempt to contribute to the limited body of quantitative research on non-state violence, I argue that the opportunity structures and security problems created by weak state institutions may help explain the occurrence of violence between groups. Drawing on the argument that state capacity is important for domestic peace, I claim that non-state violence is more likely when groups are forced to provide for their own security within the state sphere. However, although weak state capacity structures create opportunities for groups to engage in fighting, an anarchical environment in itself might not explain inter-group violence. Thus, I argue that the interplay between economic and political exclusion of groups and weak state capacity further increases the risk of non-state conflict, creating both opportunities and motivation to engage in conflict. Whereas the majority of quantitative studies that focus on marginalization emphasize rebel groups in relation to the state, I argue that violence to ameliorate uneven distribution is just as likely to be directed at non-state groups who receive a larger share of economic and political welfare.

Utilizing data on Sub-Saharan Africa from 1989 to 2011, I conduct a quantitative analysis studying the effect of weak state capacity on inter-group violence. The empirical analysis provides support for the theoretical expectation that weak state capacity increases the risk of inter-group violence, and that the combined presence of economic marginalization and weak state capacity further increases this risk. However, I find no support for a combined effect of weak state structures and political marginalization. The findings highlight the importance of state capacity for internal peace, and lend support to the literature emphasizing the relationship between state strength and conflict. Also, they illustrate the advantages of a more uniform theoretical framework, focusing on a specific type of violence between organized groups.

(6)

(7)

Acknowledgements

First, I would like to thank my supervisors, Hanne Fjelde and H˚avard Mokleiv Nyg˚ard, for sharing their knowledge on the field. The interesting conversations, helpful comments and constant presence during the writing process is much appreciated. Despite the fact that one was in Nairobi and the other in New York, this was no impediment for guidance, and I would undoubtedly have chosen the same supervisors again. Second, I would like to thank H˚avard Hegre, Carl Henrik Knutsen and H˚avard Mokleiv Nyg˚ard for giving me the opportunity to write this master thesis in conjunction with the project Conceptual- ization and Measurement of Democracy¹. I would also like to thank the other master students who participated in the seminars for helpful comments, long sought-after coffee brakes and new friendships: Ingrid Selle Rasmussen, Lars Petter Berg, Jonas Kjærvik, Jørn Wichne Pedersen, Øyvind Stiansen, Solveig Hillesund, Katrine Heggedal, Kristin Alveng and Idunn Kristiansen. Third, I would like to thank Espen Geelmuyden Rød, Tore Wig, Rune Busch and Ranveig Drolsum Flaten, as their master theses have been of much inspiration and help. Fourth, I would like to thank Arve, usually in the field of case study research, for stepping into the world of statistics for the occasion, correcting spelling mistakes and giving constructive feedback. Fifth, I would like to thank my family for always stressing the importance of an education.

All remaining errors in this thesis are my responsibility alone.

Word count: 36 761 Ida Rudolfsen Oslo, 22.05.2013

1RCN Project 204454/V10. See http://www.sv.uio.no/isv/english/research/projects/conceptualization- and-measurement/index.html.

(8)

(9)

List of Figures

4.1 Distribution of Non-State Conflicts: 1989-2011 . . . 32

5.1 Number of Non-State Fatalities in Thousands: 1989-2011 . . . 38

6.1 Number of Non-State Conflicts: 1989-2011 . . . 66

6.2 Model 5, Logistic Regression: Box plot of simulated probability of inter- group violence in strong and weak states. . . 71

6.3 Model 6, Negative Binomial Regression: Box plot of simulated probability of inter-group violence in strong and weak states . . . 72

6.4 Interactions: Statistically different effect for weak and strong states . . . 79

6.5 Interactions: Simulated probability of inter-group violence over increasing levels of inequality . . . 81

6.6 Interactions: Simulated probability of inter-group violence over increasing levels of inequality in eight scenarios . . . 84

6.7 ROC-curve: Model 1, 3, 5 and 7 . . . 87

7.1 Predicted versus Observed Values: Model 15 . . . 96

B.1 Missingness Map . . . 128

B.2 Testing the Missing at Random Assumption: Kernel density plot . . . 129

B.3 Overimputation . . . 130

B.4 Scatterplot: Missing . . . 131

C.1 All Interactions: Statistically different effect for weak and strong states . 135 C.2 Coefficient Plot: The effect of inequality conditioned on state capacity . . 136

D.1 Influential Observations: Cook’s statistic . . . 148

(14)

(15)

List of Tables

5.1 Sample of Inter-group Conflicts in Sub-Saharan Africa: 1989-2011 . . . . 40

5.2 Cross-Correlation Table for Interactions . . . 58

5.3 Descriptive Statistics: Imputed data . . . 64

6.1 Inter-group Conflicts by Regime Strength . . . 66

6.2 Inter-group Conflicts by Amount of Economic Exclusion . . . 67

6.3 Inter-group Conflicts by Size of Largest Excluded Group . . . 67

6.4 Conflict Events within States . . . 68

6.5 Logistic and Count Regressions: Estimated odds and incidence odds of inter-group violence in Sub-Saharan Africa, 1989-2011 . . . 69

6.6 Count Regressions with Interactions: Estimated incidence odds of inter- group violence in Sub-Saharan Africa, 1989-2011 . . . 74

6.7 Overview of the eight scenarios used for simulation . . . 80

6.8 Out-of-Sample Predictions: Model 11, 12, 15 and 16 . . . 89

7.1 Fit Statistics . . . 97

A.1 Descriptive Statistics: Non-imputed data . . . 125

A.2 Countries Included in the Analysis . . . 126

B.1 Countries with Completely Missing . . . 127

C.1 Logistic and Count Regressions: Baseline models, 1989-2011 . . . 133

C.2 Count Regressions with All Interactions: Estimated incidence odds for inter-group violence in Sub-Saharan Africa, 1989-2011 . . . 134

D.1 Logistic and Count Regressions: Clustered on year and unclustered, 1989- 2011 . . . 138

D.2 Count Regressions with Interactions: Clustered on year and unclustered, 1989-2011 . . . 139

(16)

D.3 Logistic Regressions: Influential observations removed, 1989-2011 . . . . 140 D.4 Logistic and Count Regressions: Education, ethnic diveristy, youth bulges

and oil added, 1989-2011 . . . 141 D.5 Count Regressions with Interactions: Education, ethnic diveristy, youth

bulges and oil added, 1989-2011 . . . 142 D.6 Logistic and Count Regressions: Alternative operationalization of state

capacity, 1989-2011 . . . 143 D.7 Count Regressions with Interactions: Alternative operationalization of

state capacity, 1989-2011 . . . 144 D.8 Alternative Methods: Rare event logistic and zero inflated negative bino-

mial regression, 1989-2011 . . . 145 D.9 Alternative Methods: Interactions with rare event logistic regression, 1989-

2011 . . . 146 D.10 Alternative Methods: Interactions with zero inflated negative binomial

regression, 1989-2011 . . . 147

(17)

Chapter 1 Introduction

Why do non-state groups engage in violent conflict with each other? Inter-group violence has been prevalent in countries such as D.R. Congo, Nigeria, Burundi, and Liberia, and non-state violence can have equally damaging effects as other types of conflict. According to Sundberg, Eck and Kreutz (2012a), more than 60 000 people lost their lives in Africa between 1989 and 2008 in armed conflicts between non-state groups. Yet, most studies on conflict have focused on armed conflicts with the state as one of the belligerents, paying little attention to inter-group fighting (Fjelde and Nilsson 2012).

For the groups and communities affected by non-state conflict, the consequences of this type of violence can be very similar to that of civil war, both in terms of loss of human lives and property, displacement and war-related diseases (Fjelde and Østby 2012). However, there is great variation in the occurrence of inter-group violence across African states.

While some areas have no armed conflicts between societal groups, other areas, such as Darfur in Sudan and eastern D.R. Congo, have seen several instances of inter-group violence. What factors can explain this variation? A limited amount of quantitative studies have sought to answer this question. In an attempt to address this gap in the literature, this thesis will seek to evaluate the role of weak state capacity in explaining the risk of armed conflict between groups. Drawing on the argument that institutional setup is critical to domestic peace, I argue that weak state capacity can increase the risk of inter-group violence when groups within the state are forced to provide for their own security. When central authority is weak, the groups cannot depend on the state for protection, and must evaluate their position in relation to each other. When forced to be self-reliant the groups must assess their relative strength, as other groups could become potential rivals within the unincorporated state sphere.

(18)

Somalia has experienced multiple non-state conflicts, and is a useful example within a weak state capacity framework (Lewis 1994). With the outbreak of civil war and the removal of Barre in 1991, there has been an increasing number of organized and armed groups. With the emerging state anarchy, every major Somali group formed its own militia movement; the Somali Salvation Democratic Front, Somali National Movement, United Somali Congress and Somali Patriotic Movement. These movements became self- governing, carving out spheres of influence in the periphery and engaging in conflict with other groups. The armed faction of the group became the providers of security and was often the political representative of the group at large. With the state unable to provide for the people of Somalia, the group became the relevant political community and the armed faction within this group provided protection for the group at large (Vinci 2006).

However, the dissolution of central authority does not in itself necessarily explain why groups take up arms. Many states can be classified as weak without experiencing inter- group fighting. Indeed, without a treatment of group differentiation, which generates this anarchical environment, structural arguments do often not explain conflicts, they merely redescribe them. The rise of a security threat between groups in a weak state is not necessarily a sufficient cause of inter-group violence. Rather, it provides the necessary conditions in which it can take place (Roe 1999). Therefore, I argue that state weakness in combination with economic and political marginalization of groups could further increase the risk of conflict between groups, and that this provides useful insights when trying to explain inter-group violence. While accommodating groups that are relevant for survival, the state is unable to provide for the population at large, leaving other ethnic groups excluded. Disparities in the distribution of economic and political power in a weak state caused by state capture of a specific ethnic group can facilitate violent mobilization of excluded groups to alter distribution asymmetries. Uneven redistribution are transformed into deprivation and security fears through group differentiation. When groups lack welfare and must provide for their own security in a weak state, violent attacks may be directed against rival groups who have a relatively larger share of entitlements in an effort to change the status quo. Simply put, the anarchical environment provides the opportunity to engage in conflict, and the economic and political exclusion of groups provides the motivation. Whereas quantitative studies that focus on economic marginalization and civil war emphasize rebel groups in relation to the state, I argue that economic and political marginalization also can be associated with inter-group conflict.

(19)

Violence to ameliorate any perceived injustice or threat is equally likely to be directed at non-state groups who receive a larger share of economic and political benefits.

The case of Burundi is illustrative when it comes to the combined effect of state ne- glect and marginalization on group violence. Throughout the post-colonial period, the Burundi state has not been fully in control of its entire territory. Ethnicity has been the central organizing principle, creating policies of differentiation and exclusion of specific groups. Conflicts between groups reflected the contested claims for relevance, representation and security within the state sphere. The Burundi state, then, has not been able to include the complex groupings in society as part of a broader non-ethnic political community. Instead, groups in society are engaging in conflict to secure economic and political privileges. According to Ngaruko and Nkurunziza (2000, 387), the Burundian bureaucracy became an instrument for profit for an ethnically biased elite, where the army played an important role as an actor and guarantor of the mechanism of rent collection and distribution within the elite. Thus, excluded groups are not only responsible for their own security, but are also marginalized by the politicization of ethnicity. The inter-group violence seen in Burundi can to a large extent be related to the predation by the Tutsi elite, and exclusion by the Hutus. Indeed, inter-group conflicts between Hutus and Tutsis erupted in 1997, 2000, 2003 and 2004.

Based on the above discussion I expect that state weakness will increase the risk of non- state conflict. Furthermore, I expect that if political and economic inequality concur, this should further increase the risk of non-state conflict. I investigate these propositions using large-N analysis, covering all Sub-Saharan countries from 1989 to 2011. The temporal scope reflect limitations in data availability on non-state violence, and the geographical limitation is a choice based on the relative similarity of countries a smaller sample provides, where Sub-Saharan Africa most readily reflects a weak state capacity framework.

Also, when focusing on violence between groups, self-conscious group-based structures are important. Group-formation can have many origins, but ethnicity holds a particular importance in organizing collective action, and this is especially the case in Sub-Saharan Africa (Fjelde and Østby 2012; Bates 2008; Fearon 2006; Wimmer 2002).

(20)

1.1 Core Concepts

This thesis contains several concepts that are somewhat abstract in nature. I will therefore define their meaning preliminarily, so as to clarify how the concepts are understood and used in my theoretical framework and analysis. The most important concepts used in this thesis are inter-group violence¹, weak state capacity, and economic and political inequality.

1.1.1 Inter-group Violence

To arrive at a definition of non-state conflict that distinguishes it from other types of violence, there are several criteria used. The most important aspect is the lack of governmental involvement in conflict. I only focus on conflicts between two organized groups, where the state is not one of the belligerents. The definition of inter-group violence used in this thesis is taken from the UCDP Non-State Conflict Dataset (Sundberg, Eck and Kreutz 2012a), where non-state violence is understood as a conflict between two formally organized groups, neither of which is the government of a state, causing at least 25 annual battle-related deaths. The emphasis on formally organized groups entails focusing on any non-governmental group having an announced name and using armed force against another similarly organized group, such as between the Niger Delta Defense Force and the Niger Delta Vigilantes in Nigeria. Thus, I focus on groups that are organized to such a degree that they are included in the state-based armed conflict category in the UCD- P/PRIO Dataset.

I have chosen to only focus on formally organized groups to get a more unified framework, and to avoid attempting to explain several types of conflicts that can be caused by competing mechanisms. Thus, I do not look at violence between sporadically organized groups or violence during elections. Communal or informally organized groups are not included in the analysis. As I build on a logic where groups residing within a weak state must provide for their own security, is seems more likely that these, or factions of these groups, are permanently organized for combat. By adapting a more narrow focus on the type of violence and organization, I am able to obtain a more coherent theoretical framework, make the assumptions given my framework more clear, and facilitate the interpretation in my analysis.

1I use the terms inter-group violence, armed conflict between groups and non-state violence inter- changeably throughout the thesis.

(21)

1.1.2 Weak State Capacity

Although important for the study of civil conflict, state capacity is an elusive concept.

Indeed, state capacity is a broad term that can entail aspects such as coherence of institutions, economic development, and extractive and repressive capabilities (see e.g. Hegre et al. 2001; Gates et al. 2006; Hendrix 2010; Lichbach 1995; Tilly 1978). I have chosen to focus on state capacity despite its multi-dimensionality, as the quality and capacity of the state is likely to affect the opportunities for groups to exist and organize, and to engage in conflict with each other, either because they are motivated or forced to do so.

Although definitions of state capacity based on military capacity and institutional coherence has proven important for the study of civil conflict, I focus on the state’s ability to collect and respond to information and provide services for its population (ICRG nda).

The reason for this is twofold. First, institutional strength and quality of the bureaucracy is central for acquiring information, as weak states are more sensitive to large changes in public services during governmental change. With a lack of administrative functions, the knowledge of mobilization of groups and eruption of non-state violence is thereby more difficult to hinder. Second, the definition focusing on bureaucratic quality entails state capacity characterized by meritocratic recruitment, insulation from political pressure and the ability to provide services to the population, also during governmental change (DeRouen and Sobek 2004). Thus, the definition used here focuses on aspects of state capacity concerning the incorporation of groups and provision of services in the state sphere. Rather than institutional consistency or military capacity, I will therefore use the definition of state capacity in which state strength is given by the amount of bureaucratic quality and inclusion of the state.

1.1.3 Economic and Political Inequality

The study of political and economic inequality has provided a number of mechanisms for how and why conflict between different groups emerge (see e.g. Gurr 1970; Hechter and Levi 1979; Horowitz 1985). Although the motivational role of inequality has often been dismissed in the research of conflict (see e.g. Fearon and Laitin 2003; Collier and Hoeffler 2004), the gap between quantitative and case study research when it comes to motiva- tions as a cause for conflict is large, indicating that the complete dismissal of incentives is uncalled for. When studying inter-group violence, I follow the definition of inequality provided by Stewart (2008), based on ’horizontal inequalities’, which she defines as inequalities in economic, social or political dimensions between culturally defined groups.

(22)

Thus, I focus on a group-based definition of inequality, incorporating unequal access to political and economic distribution, rather than interpersonal inequality insensitive to any group based structures or social cleavages in society, and the unequal access to political and economic gains such structures can create.

A group-based definition of inequality can more easily reflect the fact that many post- independent African states were unable to be detached of powerful social interest groups, and not able to provide social benefits to all citizens independent of their ethnic belonging. In weak states where there was no specific majority, many politicians appealed to the same ethnic group, and politics became more ethnically based. Politics turns into a struggle over control of the state between various ethnic groups in weak states, where the control of the state apparatus by one ethnic group comes at the expense of other groups (Cederman, Weidmann and Gleditsch 2011). Thus, to obtain benefits and goods ethnic belonging is important, where excluded groups end up with less resources than included groups. A group based definition of inequality incorporates how economic and political exclusion can be turned into incentives to engage in conflict caused by the relative differences between groups.

1.2 Main Findings

In my analysis I find support for my theoretical expectation that weak state capacity leads to unincorporated groups, forcing them to be constantly organized and provide for their own security. This lack of state protection increases the risk of inter-group violence in a weak state. In addition, I find that the presence of not only weak state capacity but also economic inequality further increases the risk of inter-group violence. This finding supports my theoretical proposition that the combined presence of weak state structures and economic inequality provides both opportunities and incentives for groups to engage in non-state conflict. However, I find no evidence that the dual presence of weak state capacity and political exclusion increases the risk of non-state violence. In fact, I find that the larger the excluded population in a weak state, the lower the risk. This can be related to the relative grievance between groups and the potential gains by political inclusion. When it comes to the predictive power of the models, the in-sample predictions indicate that the models are improved when interaction terms are included, and the out- of-sample predictions show that the models predict conflict recurrences quite satisfactory, whereas single events by country are poorly predicted. Also, the models tend to predict

(23)

inter-group violence when there is a civil war present, indicating that the more narrow theoretical focus on non-state violence has some limitations.

The relationship between non-state conflicts and state capacity is the most central aspect of this thesis, and provides contributions concerning two aspects; (1) I focus more narrowly on a specific type of conflict, and examine the relationship between inter-group violence and weak state capacity with the use of statistical analysis. (2) I focus on the combined effect of economic and political inequality and weak state capacity, and how this relates to inter-group violence.

1.3 Structure

This thesis contains eight chapters. In Chapter 2 I review the relevant literature on inter-group violence, which provides some basis for the theoretical framework presented in Chapter 3. First, I focus on the argument of how weak state capacity can increase the risk of inter-group violence. Second, I focus on a combined effect of weak state capacity and economic and political exclusion, and how this interaction can further increase the risk of inter-group violence. In Chapter 4 I present my research design, focusing on logistic and negative binomial regressions. Chapter 5 introduces the data, presenting operational- izations and addressing methodological issues with the measurements used, discussing the potential problems with omitted variable bias, simultaneity, multicollinearity and missing. Chapter 6 contains the analyses, presenting models focusing on the role of weak state capacity, and models focusing on the combined effect of weak state capacity and inequality. Before concluding, I present some robustness tests and additional diagnostics to address the potential problem of biased inferences in Chapter 7.

(24)

(25)

Chapter 2 Literature Review

It’s a complicated war.

— Finnegan (1992) In the following I will present relevant literature on inter-group violence. I briefly address some of the literature concerning violence between informal organized groups, such as violence occurring between communal and pastoral groups, before presenting quantitative contributions on organized group violence and its link to the civil war literature. De- spite the fact that the case study literature is equally important when investigating the causes for inter-group violence, I have chosen to put main emphasis on the quantitative contributions, as they most closely relate to a theoretical framework based on militarily organized groups within a weak state sphere.

2.1 Informal Organized Groups

There exists a substantial qualitative literature on inter-group conflict. Although not directly applicable to the highly organized, armed and politically relevant groups I focus on here, the literature is relevant for the study of non-state violence. Examples of conflicts between more informal groups are violence between communal groups¹, riots², and land issues between herders and farmers. According to Raleigh (2010, 71), much of the findings in the case study literature on intra - and inter-group violence can be understood as a way to access resources in areas with a hostile or sporadic government presence. Thus,

1According to Sundberg, Eck and Kreutz (2012b, 5), communal groups can understood as groups that are not permanently organized for combat, but ”who at times organize themselves along said lines to engage in fighting”.

2For contributions within the literature on riots, see e.g. Barron, Kaiser and Pradhan (2004); Varshney (2002, 2001); Wilkinson (2004); Van Klinken (2007).

(26)

these findings provide useful insights when trying to explain quantitatively the outbreak of inter-group violence as a consequence of weak state capacity. For example, Obioha (2008) studies violence in Northern Nigeria and note that the actors engaged in conflict are often peasants and herdsmen, where the government becomes involved in the conflict more to settle the dispute than to engage in it. Much of these group conflicts relate to access to arable land and forced migration due to increasingly drought-prone areas (See also Fiki and Lee 2004). More generally, Raleigh (2010) finds that marginalization of groups and accumulating insecurity caused by climate change can cause group conflicts due to both increasing poverty over time and distress migration.

Of the case studies that have addressed armed conflicts between organized groups, Turner (2004) finds that inter-group conflicts in the Sahel region are related to changes in national policy and the corresponding weak local leadership. Conflict in this region is based on relative and not absolute resource availability, erupting when groups attempt to take control of these resources.³ Similarly, Bassett (1988) finds that violence between groups in the Northern Ivory Coast erupted as a consequence of national food policies disrupting local land-tenure agreements. Benjaminsen and Ba (2009) conclude that increased pastoral marginalization in Mali leads to more frequent land use conflicts between herders and farmers. They argue that these conflicts are a result of national policies giving pri- ority to agricultural development at the expense of pastoralism.

Although relating to overlapping mechanisms, these case studies presented here do not focus on permanently armed groups. I therefore proceed to the literature based on large N-studies that mostly focus on militarized rebel groups.

2.2 Quantitative Studies: The link to the Civil War Literature

The quantitative literature on inter-group violence is not extensive, and non-state conflict data was only recently introduced, facilitating the study of organized groups in conflict.

The most substantial civil war dataset; UCDP/PRIO (Gleditsch et al. 2002), only in- cludes violence where the state is involved, and cases of non-state violence are thereby excluded. Previous research on organized violence tends to focus on interaction with the state, rather than on any interaction between armed non-state actors (see e.g. Fearon

3See also Turner et al. (2011).

(27)

and Laitin 2003; Collier and Hoeffler 2004; Sambanis 2004; Hegre et al. 2001). Hence, for large N-studies the approach has been to emphasize a dyadic interaction between the state and a rebel group, but empirical tests of this relationship have tended to disregard the rebel organizations. While these contributions’ focus on state characteristics address the issue of violence within a state, they do not address why the state necessarily is a participant in the organized violence. Arguments concerning deprivation and threat mostly consider when political violence will occur, and do not address whether the state itself is a participant or not. As stated by Fjelde and Østby (2012): ”There is arguably a leap in many of the existing accounts from the notion that grievances derive from inter-group comparisons, but violent attempts to redress them are directed against the state, rather than the group who is the target of resentment” (Fjelde and Østby 2012, 5).

The focus on the state in the literature is based on the observation that states control the allocation of resources. However, violence against other groups can be just as likely as violence against the state, as group belonging and political power are often closely aligned. In addition, Cunningham and Lemke (2011) find that the factors used to explain civil war also can be suitable predictors for other forms of violence, such as assassinations, riots and purges. Overlap in findings suggests that theories used to explain civil war onset represent more general mechanisms about the occurrence of violence within states (Nyg˚ard and Weintraub 2011). As theories should be tested on a sample that the theory logically applies, there is a need to narrow down theory and use it more directly on a specific type of violence. This is especially relevant if theories on civil war applies to violence in more general terms.

Within the literature on civil war, the non-state side has been categorized as a unitary actor, and the literature has not taken into account the complexity of civil conflicts, where there often are several active rebel groups (Fjelde and Nilsson 2012). Civil conflicts are complex phenomena that rarely consist merely of a military struggle between the state and one rebel group. Kalyvas (2003, 475) states that "(...) civil wars are not binary conflicts but complex and ambiguous processes that foster an apparently massive, though variable, mix of identities and actions - to such a degree as to be defined by that mix”. By treating the rebel side as a unitary actor, much of the dynamics in civil conflict is lost, and the violence between non-state groups are thereby understudied.

(28)

Civil wars are typically understood based on what is perceived to be their overarching dimension: ideological, ethnic, or religious wars. With this unidimensional focus, local dynamics, actors and smaller groupings tend to be dismissed. However, a group’s motives are not necessarily driven by an overarching cause and may well be driven by more local or even personal conflicts. Groups and local communities involved in the war can take advantage of the prevailing situation to settle private and local conflicts out of government reach, or are coerced to do so. Hence, the outbreak of civil war creates an additional opportunity factor for groups, and the outbreak of civil war is in itself an indication of state weakness (Hegre et al. 2001). Thus, civil wars can be understood as a condition that provides an opportunity to address unresolved issues within a larger conflict. Civil wars transform societies into anarchies with a breakdown of political order, and when lawlessness is extended to the entire society, violence tends to be a predictable outcome (Kalyvas 2006).

Nevertheless, there are exceptions from an unidimensional focus on civil war. Among the existing studies that have moved beyond the simplifying assumption of the rebel groups as unitary actors are studies that focus on internally divided movements and multiple rebel groups’ effect on duration and outcome. According to Cunningham (2011), internally divided movements receive concessions from the state at a much higher rate than unitary actors, and that the more divided movements are the more likely they are to receive concessions. Concessions given by states are strategic acts as states can use concessions to reveal information about preferences of the movement. In the same vein, Cunningham, Bakke and Seymour (2012) focus on the neglected politics of factionalism, and find that factions in more fragmented groups are much more likely to use violence in their struggle against the state, and are more likely to attack one another and co-ethnics.

Fjelde and Nilsson (2012) find that violence between groups during civil war is a way to secure material resources and political leverage that could help the group prevail in its conflict against the state.⁴⁵ Also, the literature on secessionism is relevant for inter- group conflict. For example, Brancati (2006) notes that decentralization increases ethnic conflict and secessionism indirectly by encouraging the growth of regional parties. These parties reinforces ethnic and regional identities, introducing legislation that favors specific ethnic groups over others, mobilizing groups to engage in ethnic conflict (see also

4See also Cunningham, Gleditsch and Salehyan (2009), Nilsson (2008), Shirkey (2012) and Fjelde and Østby (2012).

5In addition, there exists research on inter-group conflicts during civil war based on in-depth studies, for example during the civil wars in Sri Lanka and Bosnia (see e.g. Christia 2008; Lilja and Hultman 2011).

(29)

Banerjee 1984; Bhatnagar and Kumar 1998; Kumar 1986).

The complexity of the events and numerous actors involved in civil conflicts makes it hard to account for what type of conflict emerges between what actors. I therefore choose to focus on inter-group violence, a specific type of violence that does not include the state, which provides a more consistent focus. The conventional literature on civil conflict places its explanation either at the individual level or more generally at the national level, and says little about the sub-state actors such as organizations or groups.

Although there are several contributions on group violence, these are mainly focusing on inter-group violence during civil war, or more in-depth studies with limited general- izability. In the following, I will therefore focus on organized non-state violence both in the absence and presence of civil war, and attempt to apply a more narrowly defined theory based on a security problem between groups in a weak state. There is room for expanding theories on non-state conflicts beyond a more general civil war framework, and for expanding empirical inquiry beyond case and in-depth studies.

(30)

(31)

Chapter 3 Theoretical Framework

To address the social consequences of a weak state structure, I apply a theory on how weak state institutions can cause security problems between groups, and how these risks might be aggravated by economic and political exclusion. The political topography of African states is seen within the context of ethnic communities, where groups can be understood to be politically included or excluded. The degree of inclusion at the state center is linked to the group’s political importance. I rely on a conceptual framework that emphasize the different capabilities and entitlements of groups, and the actors within the political realm are ethno-political groups which are constantly interacting with each other (Raleigh 2010). Hence, this framework assumes the presence of political groups in society. While this is not necessarily always the case, most scholars recognize some form of social belonging or group membership as a given part within the social and political sphere (Fjelde and Østby 2012; Horowitz 1985; Gurr 1993; Stewart 2008).

As a starting point, I follow the conceptualization of groups used by Tajfel and Turner (1979, 40), where a group is understood as:

(...) a collection of individuals who perceive themselves to be members of the same social category, share some emotional involvement in this common definition of themselves, and achieve some degree of social consensus about the evaluation of their group and of their membership of it.

However, this definition encompasses a broader approach to group differentiation than I would like to use. Here, the focus is on groups that are defined through aspects such as ethnic or religious belonging, but also has a high degree of organization. The formation of groups can have many sources, such as ethnicity, religion, identity and livelihood.

However, ethnicity seems to be a particularly important resource in organizing political

(32)

action, especially so in Sub-Saharan Africa (see e.g. Wimmer, Cederman and Min 2009;

Posner 2004; Raleigh 2010). Ethnic cleavages are therefore often the dominant group differentiation in electoral and party opposition, and important social and political units within African states. In addition, I look only at highly organized and armed groups that are permanent fighting organizations, and not groups in society in general. I assume these organized and armed groups have a relation to looser groupings in society, based on Tajfel and Turner (1979) definition of group differentiation. When looking at organized and armed groups, I make no assumption about the underlying preferences of the majority of the population that the group is supposedly representing. Hence, the strong engagement and commitment of a small minority of the organized group is often only a sub-group of a larger ethnic or religious identity, which this organized group claims to represent.

I first present different definitions and understandings of state capacity. Subsequently, I present how weak state capacity can lead to non-state conflict, through lack of control and incorporation of groups. Then, I will present how weak state capacity can cause economic and political exclusion in society, through state capture by specific groups, before illustrating theoretically how this can increase the risk of violence by facilitating mobilization and creating a security problem between groups, providing both opportunities and motivation for non-state conflict.

3.1 State Capacity

(...) the most important political distinction among countries concerns not their form of government but their degree of government.

— Huntington (1968, 1)

State capacity’s effect on the likelihood of civil conflict has been much debated amongst political scientists. Despite its importance for the study of inter- and intrastate conflict, state capacity remains a concept lacking a precise definition. As stated by Hendrix (2010, 273): ”State capacity is a quality conspicuous both in its absence and presence but difficult to define.”¹ State capacity is a multi-dimensional concept that encompasses not only extractive abilities of a state but also economic development and quality of institutions.

1Given the sparse literature available on inter-group violence, I explicitly draw many of my theoretical assumptions and empirical expectations from the civil war literature.

(33)

Despite the variation of definitions of state capacity, previous research show that strong states have a decreased risk of experiencing internal conflict (Sobek 2010). While research based on the greed versus grievances debate focus on the willingness of actors to use violence to alter power relations, there has been less focus on state capacity. The quality and capacity of state institutions are important for the likelihood of conflict, as it affects the opportunities for groups to exist and organize, and to engage in violent conflict with each other.

According to Hegre et al. (2001), states have the ability to absorb the demands of their population in ways that can reduce the potential of political violence, or simply deter resistance through their ability to use physical coercion. While consolidated democracies have institutionalized channels through which subversive groups can be accommodated, authoritarian states experience fewer civil conflicts because potential dissidents are less likely to mobilize when they perceive the repressive capacity of the state to be high (Tilly 1978). Hegre et al. (2001) find that authoritarian states and institutionally consistent democracies experience fewer internal conflicts than intermediate regimes. Semidemoc- racies are weaker because the regime type possesses inherent contradictions as a result of being open yet somewhat repressive. This is a combination that invites protest, rebellion and other forms of violence. In the same vein, Gates et al. (2006) find that institutionally consistent regimes last longer than inconsistent ones. However, broad distinctions of regime type may simplify institutional heterogeneity of both democratic and authoritarian regimes. It is difficult to decide the institutional structure of an inconsistent regime, other than it is not completely repressive or free, and to assess what the institutional design of an inconsistent regime is (Rød 2012). In addition, although there is evidence linking democracy and bureaucratic capacity, there is little evidence linking institutional coherence to bureaucratic quality (Hendrix 2010).

State capacity can also be defined in relation to a state’s ability to use force. This definition has its roots in the Weberian definition of state capacity: ”The state is a human community that successfully claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of force within a given territory”(Weber 1946, 212). The strength and size of the military can be seen as the most important element in a state’s repressive capabilities, and how this effects the onset and termination of civil conflict. Hence, a smaller and less organized militant group should be less of a threat than a larger and more organized group (Hendrix 2010). Empirically, this implies more internal conflict when states are weak, since weak

(34)

states invite collective dissent (Lichbach 1995). Buhaug (2010) finds that larger militaries are associated with lower risk of conflict onset and shorter war duration, while Fearon and Laitin (2003) stress the importance of a state’s repressive capacity, and that the prospects of civil conflict is dependent on the government’s military capabilities and the reach of government institutions into rural areas. These areas, where dissident groups ex- ert control, are essential for the group’s survival, as they can slowly gain strength through acquiring food and labour from local populations.

However, definitions of state capacity based on military strength may not capture the aspects that are most important for a group to take up arms. State weakness makes it more costly to control an entire country’s territory. Yet, the government could trans- fer an overwhelmingly number of forces to these peripheral areas, and assume control (Holtermann 2012). Fearon and Laitin (2003) argue that if government forces knew who the dissident were and how to find them, they would be easily destroyed, as such groups are relatively weaker than the government in terms of both arms and soldiers. State strength, then, should perhaps rather be measured in a state’s ability to collect and respond to information, and provide services for the entire population, than the size of military strength or regime consistency (Hendrix 2010).

The gains of a more bureaucratic-institutional definition is twofold. First, institutional strength and quality of the bureaucracy is central for acquiring and responding to information, as weak states are more sensitive to large changes and interruptions in services during reorganization of government. With a lack of administrative functions and meritocratic expertise the knowledge of potential mobilization of groups can be more difficult to obtain, and thereby also more difficult to hinder. Hence, the decision to engage in violent conflict may be affected more by the bureaucratic quality of the government, than the size of its military and regime characteristics. Second, the definition encompassing bureaucratic quality concerns the state’s ability or will to incorporate groups in the state sphere and provide equal concessions to the entire population. Rather than regime consistency or military strength, I will therefore use the definition of state capacity in which state capacity is dependent on the amount of bureaucratic quality in the government, characterized by regular and meritocratic recruitment, insulation from political pressure and the ability to provide services to the population despite government changes (DeRouen and Sobek 2004). Therefore, countries that do not have the strength and expertise to govern without policies being largely altered during government change, is lacking independence

(35)

from political pressure in society, and is largely driven by patrimonialism and lack day-to day administrative functions, are here considered to be states with limited state capacity.

The main features of a weak state are limited reach of state institutions and lack of security within its territory. The state, then, has only limited ability to incorporate all the groups in society within the state sphere, and an increasingly anarchical environment emerges for the excluded groups. The theory of a security dilemma in the presence of anarchy was originally created with interstate relations in mind,² but has in more recent times been used on the intrastate level in an attempt to address the question of ethnic conflict in weak states. Posen (1993) claims that security dilemma within states can occur when conditions are similar to those between states in the international arena. State weakness can therefore be seen as a problem of ’emerging anarchy’ in the absence of a central authority, and the various groups are forced to provide for their own security.

In the same vein, Kaufmann (1996) points out that if the government cannot effectively control its territory so as to be able to protect its people, while organized groups can, then these groups can acquire sufficient attributes of sovereignty to create a security dilemma. Hence, Kaufmann’s approach is similar that of Posen’s, where the absence of an effective central authority forces groups to take actions to defend themselves, which again threatens the security of other groups.

With the lack of territorial control and information within the state apparatus, groups can more easily organize themselves militarily and mobilize to engage in conflict. This is especially the case if groups choose to engage in fighting with other groups, who do not have the same amount of military strength and soldiers as the state. Starting a rebellion against the state requires high organizational capacity and resources, which marginalized and excluded groups are not likely to have. Indeed, groups with low military capacity and political irrelevance are not likely to be able to campaign against the government to redress uneven redistribution. Engaging in conflict against other groups, however, requires less military capability and resources, suggesting that inter-group violence is a more likely

2The term ’security dilemma’ was first used by Herz (1951), and was said to occur when two parties, neither wishing to harm the other, end up in a conflict (See also Butterfield 1951; Jervis 1978). The reason for why such a ’tragedy’ could occur is uncertainty between the two parties, where the uncertainty produces fear in both parties that the other would want to harm them. At the same time, they are unaware that they themselves are creating feelings of insecurity in the other. This implies that both parties could be secure if they could come to see the nature of the situation they are in. Uncertainty concerning the others’ intentions is therefore a central aspect in the security dilemma. Worst-case scenarios may often lead to a spiral between two or several actors. The more one actor increase arms to provide for its own security, the more the other will have to increase the amount of arms so as to maintain the same level of security (Roe 1999).

(36)

outcome when groups must be self-reliant. Weak state capacity creates a situation where groups must provide for their own security, and thereby also opens up the opportunity to engage in conflict. Hypothesis H1 summarizes this theoretical expectation:

H1: Weak state capacity increases the risk of inter-group violence.

However, an anarchical environment and the necessity (or opportunity) to provide for ones own security is not necessarily enough to cause inter-group violence. It is possible to reside within a weak state, and have an opportunity to engage in fighting, without taking up arms. There is not a deterministic relationship between an anarchical state and inter- group violence, since states with anarchical features do not necessarily see inter-group violence. Rather, it is a precondition for violence between groups to emerge. Hence, I hypothesize that two additional features within a weak state might help explain the emergence of non state conflict, by incorporating specific incentives in addition to the opportunity structures provided by a weak state; economic and political marginalization.

3.2 Economic and Political Exclusion in a Weak State

Ethnic contests for power serve mainly to perpetuate disproportional government representation.

— Raleigh (2010, 74)

Political and economic inequality has been a central part of the literature on violent conflict, and has provided a number of mechanisms for how and why ethnicity contributes to conflict. Gurr (1970) focused on state-imposed disadvantages and discrimination of groups, and presented the theory of relative deprivation, which argued that different types of inequality increase the risk of internal conflict as a reaction to frustrations stemming from unfulfilled aspirations.³ Some argue that ethnicity causes violence through emotions, resentment of other groups than one’s own, or the protection of one’s group survival based on fear (see e.g. Kaplan 1993; Petersen 2002; Posen 1993; Lake and Rothchild 1996).

According to Toft (2003), ethnic conflicts are more likely to occur when ethnic groups are territorially concentrated in an area considered their homeland.

3See also Hechter and Levi (1979), Russett (1964), Davies (1962) and Horowitz (1985).

(37)

The motivational role of inequality has often been dismissed in the research of conflict on the basis that grievances are abstract phenomena (see e.g. Fearon and Laitin 2003; Col- lier and Hoeffler 2004). These contributions have focused more on opportunity structures emerging for potential insurgents, while giving incentives a less prominent role (Buhaug et al. 2011). These studies have found no link between inequality and conflict. Using interpersonal income inequality, these studies have been criticized for using individual level measures of income distribution, such as the Gini-coefficient, that are insensitive to social cleavages and group structures. Stewart (2008) emphasizes the importance of

’horizontal inequalities’⁴, which she defines as inequalities in economic, social or political dimensions between culturally defined groups. Based on case studies, she finds that horizontal inequality is associated with armed conflict. Also more recent large-N studies focus on how distributional asymmetries affect conflict behavior, and finds that countries with a more unequal distribution of wealth and political benefits are more exposed to various forms of violence (see e.g. Buhaug, Cederman and Rød 2008; Cederman, Weidmann and Gleditsch 2011; Hegre, Østby and Raleigh 2009; Østby 2008). These contributions, among others, stress the need to focus on group-based measures of unequal access to political and economic distribution, and find evidence for a link between group inequality and conflict.

I follow the definition of horizontal inequalities (HI) provided by Stewart (2008) to theo- rize group differentiation, focusing on the political and economic dimension of horizontal inequalities. Although these two aspects can be claimed to be interrelated, I will treat them as two separate components. It is emphasized that different types of deprivation can exist simultaneously, and that one type of exclusion may be present whereas the other is not (Raleigh 2010). Economic inequality is not simply and artifact of political inequality, and vice versa (see e.g. Cederman, Weidmann and Gleditsch 2011). I therefore choose to include both marginalization aspects in my analysis.⁵

African political regimes tend to be dominated by the intensity of the competition that di- vides their political actors, and competition between political entrepreneurs accounts for much of the institutional instability in Sub-Saharan Africa (Bayart 2003). The amount of inequality in many Sub-Saharan African states tend to be related to the structure

4As opposed to vertical inequalities, that measures inequality between individuals rather than groups.

5The definition provided by Stewart (2008) also include social and cultural inequalities. These aspects are expected to be equally important for the study of civil conflict, but these mechanisms are outside the scope and aim of the theoretical framework presented here.

(38)

of states, where African governments do not have easy access or authority within the entire country. The emergence of nation-states in post-colonial Africa provided changes in the principles of political legitimacy, and group relations took on new dynamics when interacting with the state. The elites of the nationalizing states were not able to include and integrate the vast majority of the population into the planned community of the nation. This was especially the case for states where institutions were limited and the civil society weak, leaving the elites to rely on ethnic ties for support and legitimation (see e.g. Wimmer 2002; Buhaug, Cederman and Rød 2008). Hence, the state was not strong enough to be independent of powerful social interest groups and dominant elites, and was unable to provide social benefits to all citizens independent of their ethnic belonging. In weak states where there is no specific majority and no ethnic group that can be viewed as the ”state’s people”, political leaders might appeal to members of the same ethnic or regional group, so that ethnic distinctions become politicized.

The ethnicisation of the bureaucracy can occur through the formation of client groups, and provides the opportunity to legitimize governmental power through benefits, which again assures support from the receiving group (Migdal 1988). Ethnicity becomes a tool for private patronage and public goods provision between the ruling elite and local communities, where governments seek legitimacy by favoring co-ethnics in the distribution of goods (Fjelde and Østby 2012). Hence, the state is not a neutral agent, but is rather captured to different degrees by representatives of a specific ethnic group (Ced- erman, Wimmer and Min 2010). The charging of ethnic differences is connected with the struggle for the resources of legal security, financial redistribution, political relevance and economic infrastructure (Wimmer 1997), where political relations between groups is based on uneven political representation and interests (Raleigh 2010). Thus, resources provided by the ethnic elite that has control of the state apparatus do not seem to be public benefits, but rather collective goods available to those who belong to the ethnic group in power. As stated by Wimmer (1997, 631)⁶:

(...) the politicization of ethnicity is to be interpreted as a central aspect of modern state-building. For only when ’people’ and state are mutually related within the ideal of a legitimate order does the question arise for which ethnic group the state has to act, who is regarded as its legitimate owner, and who is entitled to have access to its services.

6For a full overview of Wimmer’s theory on the exclusion of non-members in society, see Wimmer (2002).

(39)

Politics becomes a struggle over control of the state between various ethnic groups, and this is especially the case in weak states as it is more easily captured by a specific ethnic elite and its constituencies (Cederman, Wimmer and Min 2010). It follows that to obtain material benefits, ethnic belonging is crucial. Those who lose out in the struggle for state power are less likely to obtain favorable concessions from the state, leaving the excluded groups with less resources than the included groups. As different groups in society make claims on behalf of their collective interests against the state or other groups, the state also may make such claims in the name of the dominant ethnic group (Gurr and Moore 1997). Mobutu’s faction in Zaire, for example, is mainly made up of the Ngbandi from the Equateur province, and the Kinois in D.R. Congo have a close relationship with those in power, highlighting the privileged relationship some groups can enjoy with the central authority (Bayart 2003).

Inequalities between groups are often large in Sub-Saharan African societies (Kanbur and Venables 2005), where the state neglects more peripheral groups. When social identities are politicized and the groups make social comparison through in-group and out-group categories, large differences between groups might create antagonistic inter-group relations (Tajfel and Turner 1979; Buhaug et al. 2009). The self-identification within the group can provide motivation and incentive to engage in conflict. Groups that are non- privileged in the distribution of goods share both a common deprivation and a common identity that facilitate collective action to assert groups interests (see e.g. Wimmer 2002;

Fjelde and Østby 2012; Gurr 1993). Thus, opposing group interests when attempting to obtain scarce resources promote competition and facilitates cooperation within the group, and inter-group competition can enhance intragroup morale, cooperation and cohesive- ness. Particularly unequal distribution of universally sought goods such as equality and rights will have a potential to create feelings of anger and resentment (Kalyvas 2006).

This suggests that group variation matters for the motivation for conflict not just in terms of the local conditions, but that the relative size of differences may also have influence. Because ethnic status is given at birth and therefore cannot be changed, the struggle for group prestige in ethnically heterogeneous societies may ameliorate collective action problems as soon as processes of uneven development foster rivalry between groups.

Ethnonationalist motivation may also be facilitated by historical experiences. Com- petition over relevance creates historical patterns of perception and definition of the

’other’. According to Smith (1992), the polarization of group belonging can easily be

(40)

transformed into motivation for conflict if the members feel politically threatened. The members, then, reconstruct a new set of ideas from their common history and revive them through their reinterpretations (Smith 1995). The emergence of group motivation may be especially easy if the group has past violent experiences with another group, where a discourse based on encounters with a rival group is created, either through glorifying own achievements or characterizing the rival group with negative attributes. Hence, in the words of Tajfel and Turner (1979, 33);"(...)the real conflicts of group interests not only create antagonistic inter-group relations but also heighten identification with, and positive attachment to, the in-group.” Exclusion along ethnic lines can lead to political mobilization of counter-elites, where conflict erupts because of demands of inclusion at the center of power, for example the ANC in South Africa, or the creation of a separate state or self-determination in which the ethnic group would be dominant, for example in the Angolan exclave of Cabinda (Buhaug et al. 2011).

The existing literature provides strong implications for how uneven distribution and anarchical features within the state can lead to a polarization of group belonging. However, just as there are many weak states with lacking security that have not seen any non-state violence, there are many aggrieved groups within countries that do not choose to engage in conflict. ”It is a profound and repeated finding that the mere facts of poverty and inequality or even increases in these conditions do not lead to political and ethnic violence”

(Goldstone 2002, 8). For mobilization to occur, there must be opportunities available for the aggrieved groups to do so, and it is therefore important to identify structures that make it both possible and likely for groups to take up arms. And it is exactly here that the combination of limited state security and the state capture of a specific group becomes relevant. As a weak state is more likely to be controlled by a specific ethnic group, and cannot provide economic and political security for the remaining ethnic groups, the excluded groups are more inclined to engage in conflict. State weakness in combination with economic and political marginalization of groups could cause security problems by creating both opportunities and incentives to engage in conflict, as inequality in economic and political relevance can facilitate violent mobilization to alter resource asymmetries when uneven redistribution are transformed into fear of survival and a sense of deprivation through group comparison.

Violence between groups can be seen as a product of self-governing (Raleigh 2010), where the political exclusion of groups exacerbates conflict over political and economic resources

(41)

when inclusion is a function of group belonging. Inter-group violence is a way of addressing imbalanced access to relevance critical for group survival within a weak state sphere which is controlled by a different ethnic group. When weaker groups must provide for their own security in a weak state, violent attacks may be directed against rival groups who have a relatively larger share of entitlements in an effort to change the status quo.

Indeed, when the distribution of power is limited to a specific group in society and the non-privileged groups are excluded from political competition of power, the subordination of the excluded group is permanently fixed. Change can be brought about only through the means of force (Horowitz 1985). Thus, unequal distribution of resources are likely to intensify group violence between privileged and non-priveleged groups.

However, it is not necessarily only the weaker group who decides to take up arms. The lack of reach of state institutions may also provide opportunity structures for stronger groups to attack a weaker, so as to take control of an even larger share of resources.

Stronger groups can have incentives to exploit such divisions to engage in conflict, by portraying weaker groups as a threat to their economic and political privileges (Fjelde and Østby 2012). Previous studies have found that social inequalities can shape na- tionalism beyond the basis of marginalization, where more affluent groups seek toward separatism. Gourevitch (1979), for example, noted that groups in economically richer areas felt undermined by poorer regions, seeking independence for ones own group.

In practice, many Sub-Saharan African governments do not have effective sovereignty across their full territories. This lack of capacity affects the ability (or will) of states to provide basic services, and the geographical control of the government is quite varied, creating spaces of non-governance that are unincorporated. Economic and political exclusion creates high variation in government services, where political representation and economic accommodation is lower for marginalized groups (Peet and Watts 1996; Coast 2002). Thus, the question of economic and political survival and relevance becomes important in an anarchical state, and the emergence of a security problem between groups may manifest itself in two ways: First, the anarchical structure provides an opportunity for a stronger group to attack a weaker to secure an even larger share of wealth and political relevance, and second, a weaker group attacks a stronger group because of security fears and deprivation. Hence, the groups deliberately take up arms in the anarchical state because of an uneven distribution of economic and political privileges, and unin- tentionality cannot be assumed. The security dilemma emerging within an anarchy is a

(42)

spiral model where intentions on both parts are benign, and neither side wishes to harm the other.⁷ However, I assume that groups deliberately take up arms to change the status quo within the anarchical structure, where one group attempts to make its situation better by arming itself to deter another group. Also, the security dilemma sees state participation as completely absent, whereas I focus on the consequences when the central authority is weak and politicized. I therefore see the relationship between groups with different amounts of economic entitlements as a security problem, rather than a security dilemma, where groups are intentionally aggressive. This security problem emerges when the groups included in the legitimate base of support of the government are accommodated, whereas excluded groups in the periphery are not (Raleigh 2010). The exclusion of groups within a weak state sphere creates both opportunities and incentives to alter the status quo, making non-state conflict more likely. The hypotheses summarize these theoretical expectations:

H1a: Economic marginalization in a weak state further increases the risk of inter-group violence.

H1b: Political marginalization in a weak state further increases the risk of inter-group violence.

Given that the state is such a significant actor for the allocation of power and resources, existing literature has focused on conflicts where the state is involved. However, because group belonging and political power is so closely linked in many Sub-Saharan states, the feeling of deprivation and fear of group survival is likely to be directed at the members of the group that occupies the state. When the state is functioning in defense of particular group interests, attacking the group that is receiving privileges from the government is also an attack on the state as such (Fjelde and Østby 2012). Hence, inter-group violence

7Both Kaufmann and Posen’s argument seems to indicate that group identities, historical record and rhetoric are equally important for threats between groups as by anarchy itself. Although I do agree that conflict between groups may be driven by some additional factor than an anarchical environment, I do not view these factors necessarily as creating a securitydilemma. As stated by Tang (2011), three aspects of the security dilemma are essential: anarchy, lack of malign intention on both sides, and some accumulation of power. As a consequence, Posen’s use of the former Yugoslavia as case is contradictory to the security dilemma, as he claims there were plenty of signals of malign intent (Posen 1993, 37).

Therefore, it is not given whether the situation is best described as a security dilemma, or as a security problem. Kaufmann’s use of the concept is also at odds with the definition provided by Butterfield (1951), as he claims that elite-led violence will eventually create a security dilemma. Kaufmann’s structural security dilemma, then, has occurred after the outbreak of violence, and he disregards the unintentional origin of the security dilemma.

State Capacity, Inequality and Inter-group Violence in Sub-Saharan Africa

State Capacity, Inequality and Inter-group Violence in Sub-Saharan Africa

Ida Rudolfsen

State Capacity, Inequality and Inter-group Violence in Sub-Saharan Africa

Ida Rudolfsen

Abstract

Acknowledgements

Contents

List of Figures

List of Tables

Chapter 1 Introduction

1.1 Core Concepts

1.1.1 Inter-group Violence

1.1.2 Weak State Capacity

1.1.3 Economic and Political Inequality

1.2 Main Findings

1.3 Structure

Chapter 2

Literature Review

2.1 Informal Organized Groups

2.2 Quantitative Studies: The link to the Civil War Literature

Chapter 3

Theoretical Framework

3.1 State Capacity

3.2 Economic and Political Exclusion in a Weak State